This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have consistently held that when a woman, more so if a minor, states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. For no woman, least of all a child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[26] Hence, we find no basis to depart from the well-settled rule that trial court's assessment of the credibility of complainant's testimony is entitled to great weight, absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.[27] | |||||
|
2002-01-25 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The defense relies mainly on denial. When accused-appellant was confronted with the charge that he raped the complainant in December 1993 and November 6, 1997, his lame explanations were "I did not do anything like that," "that is not true," "I do not know anything about that." We have consistently ruled that, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, a bare denial cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity.[10] | |||||
|
2001-12-11 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In contrast to the clear and categorical declarations of the complainant, accused-appellant merely raised alibi as his defense. We have consistently looked upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and received it with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated.[16] Unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity.[17] | |||||
|
2001-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast to the clear and categorical declarations of the private complainant, accused-appellant merely raised alibi as his defense. However, such a defense is unavailing given the facts prevailing herein. The Court has consistently looked upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and received it with caution not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated.[25] Unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity.[26] | |||||
|
2001-09-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In stark contrast to the clear and categorical declarations of the private complainant, accused-appellant merely raised denial as his defense. However, such a defense is unavailing given the facts prevailing herein. The Court has consistently held that denial is an inherently weak defense and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the accused-appellant as the defiler of her chastity.[24] Accused-appellant's insistence that "it is impossible to commit the offense charged because the sala was small, the complainant was sleeping in the middle of two maids, her brother and her sister and that the sala was well-lighted by 40-watt fluorescent lamp"[25] fails to persuade because, as this Court aptly pointed out in People v. Ruel Baway y Aligan,[26] - | |||||